Of the Priests the Levites

Of the priestly tribe of Levi, who have no land, Jehovah is the inheritance, and they shall live by the offerings to Him (Deuteronomy 18:1 f.), which are detailed (Deuteronomy 18:3 f.); He chose Levi and his sons as His priests for ever (Deuteronomy 18:5). If a rural Levite earnestly desires to come to the One Altar he may there discharge the priestly office and live by it equally with his brother Levites who already minister there (Deuteronomy 18:6-8).—Sg. throughout and in D’s phraseology; but the unity of the passage has been questioned because of the doublets in Deuteronomy 18:1 f., the double designation, the priests the Levites = all the tribe of Levi, and the parallels with Deuteronomy 10:8 f.

In Deuteronomy 18:1 Steuern. takes as original only all the tribe of Levi and attaches it as subject to Deuteronomy 18:2 (except the formula, as he hath spoken, etc.), Deuteronomy 18:3 f., Deuteronomy 18:6 (except out of all Israel), and 8; the rest he regards as secondary. Berth, on the contrary separates all the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy 18:1, with Deuteronomy 18:2; Deuteronomy 18:5 (in its LXX form), as a quotation from Deuteronomy 10:8, first placed here on the margin, and then absorbed into the text. The differences between these theories (and others) show that a reliable analysis is impossible. Steuern.’s reason for considering the standard title, the Priests the Levites, to be later than Ezekiel (cp. Kennett, Journal of Theol. Studies, 1904) is not convincing. The original author of the Code may well have used it and added all the tribe of Levi in order to put his meaning beyond doubt. At the same time there are the doublets in Deuteronomy 18:1 f., and the striking fact that while the plur. vb in Deuteronomy 18:1 suits the priests the Levites, the sing. pronouns in the Heb. of Deuteronomy 18:2, he, his, him, agree with all the tribe of Levi. It is probable, therefore, that this law is another instance of the fusion of two originally distinct laws on the subject.

Whichever analysis be preferred, the substance of this law is unmistakeable. It is not a complete law of the Priesthood, but like so many others in D, is concerned only with the people’s duties to its subject, under the new conditions introduced by the centralisation of the worship. It fixes the priest’s share of the people’s offerings (Deuteronomy 18:8 f.) and provides for the dispossessed Levites, when they come to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 18:6-8). Its assertion of the equality of all members of the tribe of Levi in priestly rank and rights (qualified only by the condition that these are valid only at the One Altar) is, as we have seen on Deuteronomy 10:8, characteristic of D. It agrees besides with the spirit of the earlier practice in Israel1[140]—1 Kings 12:31, Ezekiel 44:10-16; and it proves that the author, or authors, of D’s Code were ignorant of this (therefore, probably later) distinction which P makes between the sons of Aaron, as alone priests, and the rest of the tribe, who have not priestly rank and whose revenues are distinct from those of the priests. In P also the revenues of the priests differ from those assigned in D; see above on Deuteronomy 10:8 f., and Driver’s Deut. 218 ff.

[140] But at one time in Israel others than sons of the tribe of Levi were admitted to the priesthood and called Levites: see Exodus 4:14, with Driver’s note, and Jdg 17:7-13.

1. The priests the Levites] This double title, peculiar to D, is found both in the Code, Deuteronomy 17:9; Deuteronomy 17:18, Deuteronomy 24:8 (cp. Deuteronomy 21:5 : the priests the sons of Levi) and in Deuteronomy 27:9 (edit.?), cp. Deuteronomy 31:9. By God’s appointment (Deuteronomy 18:5) all members of the tribe of Levi were priests de jure, but in consequence of the law abolishing the rural altars and rendering priestly functions impossible except in the Temple, a member of the tribe while resident in the country is called Levite alone—the Levite within thy gates—and can secure the name and the rights of a priest only when he removes to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 18:6); where however he does not cease to be called Levite (Deuteronomy 18:7). With this distinction the priests and the Levites are to D synonymous. This is further emphasised by the addition—

all the tribe of Levi] The and prefixed by the A.V. and R.V. Marg. is not in the Heb., in which the phrase stands in apposition to the priests the Levites. There is therefore no possibility in the interpretation that D intended by Levites ‘all other members of the tribe of Levi.’ This interpretation is a forced attempt to reconcile D’s law with those of P which distinguish between priests and Levites.

no portion nor inheritance with Israel] Cp. Deuteronomy 10:9 (with his brethren), Deuteronomy 12:12 (with you), Deuteronomy 14:27; Deuteronomy 14:29 (with thee), and the deuteronomic Joshua 13:14; Joshua 13:33; Joshua 18:7. The tribe are landless. So in P, Numbers 18:20; Numbers 18:23 f., Numbers 26:62.

they shall eat] live, or subsist, by; cp. Ar. ’ukul (from the same root) ‘means of subsistence.’

the offerings of the Lord made by fire] This expression, an early instance of which occurs in 1 Samuel 2:28, is found more than 60 times in P and nowhere else (the grammar shows that it is an intrusion. Joshua 13:14).

and his inheritance] all other offerings to the Deity, such as are detailed in Deuteronomy 18:4.

2. As in Deuteronomy 10:9 : read with Heb. he, his, him for they, their, them and see introd. to this law.

3. And this shall be the priests’ due, etc.] Heb. mishpaṭ, as in 1 Samuel 2:13, where render: and the priests’ due from the people.

from them that offer a sacrifice] Heb. slay, or sacrifice, a sacrifice, a comprehensive phrase including every victim offered at the Altar where alone sacrifice was valid. This precludes the various theories suggested with the view of reconciling D’s law with that of P (see next note), viz. (1) that the law refers not to animals offered at the Temple but to those slain for food at home (Deuteronomy 12:15 f.); (2) that it refers only to the eating of firstlings (Deuteronomy 12:17 f., Deuteronomy 15:20); (3) that it refers to more dues to the priests, additional to those prescribed in P.

the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw] According to 1 Samuel 2:12-17 the earlier practice had been that the priest’s servant with a three-pronged fork took what he could for his master out of the caldron in which the victim was being boiled for the worshippers; and it was regarded as a sinful innovation when the sons of Eli demanded to receive their portions while the flesh was still raw, no doubt in order that they might secure certain definite parts of the animal. This claim the law in D now legalises, naming the pieces of the victim to be given to the priest. P represents a later development, and prescribes still better pieces, the breast and the right thigh (Leviticus 7:31 ff; Leviticus 10:14 f., Numbers 18:18). For the gradual increase of the priests’ dues and of their other sources of revenue from D onwards, see Jerusalem, i. 354–366.

4. the firstfruits] or, it may be, the best. Heb. reshîth, not bikkûrim (Deuteronomy 12:6). See Deuteronomy 26:2 f.; cp. E, Exodus 23:19, J, Exodus 34:26, and P, Numbers 18:12. On corn, wine and oil, see Deuteronomy 7:13, Deuteronomy 12:17, Deuteronomy 14:23, Deuteronomy 25:19-19. The first or best, of the fleece is mentioned only here.

5. Sam. and some Codd. of LXX read: to stand before the Lord [thy God] to minister [unto him] and to bless in his name, as in Deuteronomy 10:8 (q.v.); and for the unto this day of that v. some have all the days; others read, he and his sons among the sons of Israel.

6. a Levite … from any of thy gates] any of the tribe who had ministered at any of the rural sanctuaries now disestablished by the concentration of the cultus at Jerusalem. Thy gates, see Deuteronomy 12:12. Out of all Israel, emphatic addition to the usual phrase.

where he sojourneth] Heb. is a gçr, a landless resident, without portion or inheritance. So in Jdg 17:7; Jdg 19:1. D knows nothing of the Levitical cities of P, Numbers 35:1-8, Joshua 21.

and come with all the desire of his soul] The construction is uncertain. Some begin the apodosis of this conditional sentence here, then he may come, etc. (Steuern., Berth.), which is not probable; others preferably with the beginning of Deuteronomy 18:7 (EVV., Wellh., Addis, Marti); others not till the beginning of Deuteronomy 18:8 (Dillm., Driv.). Desire of his soul, see Deuteronomy 12:15.

unto the place, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 12:5.

7. then he shall minister] See on Deuteronomy 10:8. If he comes to the one place at which sacrifice is valid, the rural Levite may discharge the priestly office equally with the Levites who already minister there.

8. They shall have] Sam. LXX: he shall have.

beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony] a paraphrase of the difficult Heb.: beside his sales, or realised values, or prices, on the fathers (LXX, πλὴν τῆς πράσεως τῆς κατὰ πατριάν). EVV.’s paraphrase is generally accepted; cp. Jeremiah 32:6-15; Jeremiah 37:12 (R.V.), which shows a priest from a rural sanctuary, who had removed to Jerusalem, possessing money of his own and by right of redemption able to buy land which a relative desired to sell. Dillm., rejecting the usual interpretation as too obvious, proposes ‘the money which he realised on such dues as had fallen to him from the families to whom he ministered at his home.’ A certain solution of the difficulty is hardly possible. Either we have an abbreviated legal formula the meaning of which is lost, or the text is corrupt. By small emendations, Steuern. ingeniously reads: ‘except those who are idolatrous priests and necromancers.’ This is agreeable to the spirit of D, guards against an easy abuse of the law and is in harmony with the next law; but it has to be forced out of even the emended syntax.

This law of D, establishing the rural Levites, who come to Jerusalem, in equal rank and privilege with their fellow-tribesmen already ministering there, was not carried out. 2 Kings 23:9 states that the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren. Apparently the Jerusalem priests succeeded from the first in keeping off the rural Levites from the priestly function of sacrifice on the ground that the cults which they had served were idolatrous (high places); and exclusion from the altar involved of course exclusion from the priest’s share of the offerings. That they ate unleavened bread (the attempts to emend this text are unsatisfactory) with their brethren may imply some peculiar privilege of the priests; yet unleavened bread was not their food alone, and so the phrase more probably means that though shut out from priestly functions the rural Levites were not excommunicated from eating at the Passover, with their brother Levites and other Israelites. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 44:10-14) excludes ‘Levites’ from the priesthood (confined by him to the sons of Zadok) and degrades them to inferior services about the Temple. We have already seen (on Deuteronomy 10:8 f.) how this inferiority was confirmed by P.

9. When thou art come into the land] Characteristic of the Sg.; cp. Deuteronomy 9:5.

which the Lord thy God is to give thee] Peculiar to D; see on Deuteronomy 1:20, Deuteronomy 4:21 f.

learn to do] Only here.

abominations] See on Deuteronomy 7:25, and cp. Deuteronomy 12:31.

9–22. Of Prophets in contrast to Diviners, etc.

In the promised land Israel must have nothing to do with the abominations of its peoples (Deuteronomy 18:9); with any one passing his children through the fire, or diviner, soothsayer, augur, sorcerer, spell-binder or trafficker with the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10 f.), for these are abominations to Jehovah to whom Israel must be utterly loyal (Deuteronomy 18:12-14). A prophet shall He raise up from among themselves, to be such a mediator of His word, as in Ḥoreb they had prayed Moses to be; to him shall they hearken (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). The prophet who presumes to speak in God’s name what He has not spoken, or in the name of other gods, shall die (Deuteronomy 18:20). The proof of his falseness shall be the non-fulfilment of his predictions (Deuteronomy 18:21 f.).—Sg. throughout except for an insertion in Deuteronomy 18:15 (see note) and, acc. to Sam. LXX, the last clause of Deuteronomy 18:22. There are no other signs of a diversity of hands. The spirit is thoroughly deuteronomic, the argument compact and consistent.

Marti reads Deuteronomy 18:9-13 as belonging to the law of the priests (Deuteronomy 18:1-8) and Deuteronomy 18:14-22 as a later addition (so too Cornill), with this further evidence of its secondary character that it introduces Moses in a way unparalleled in the Code, and in 22 gives a onesided conception of prophecy. But it is most probable that the Code of D, founded on the teaching of the prophets, contained a law of the Prophet in succession to those on Judges, King and Priests; and the emphatic contrast, which the construction of the passage brings out between the native prophet and the foreign diviners (see on Deuteronomy 18:15), is natural and leaves a strong impression of the unity of the whole. Indeed it is easier to argue the secondary character of Deuteronomy 18:10-13 (as unnecessary before 14 and as containing the term perfect not applied so elsewhere in D but found in P) than that of Deuteronomy 18:14-22. Nor does Deuteronomy 18:22 give so imperfect a view of prophecy as Marti supposes; the resemblance between it and the tests which Jeremiah applied to himself and the false prophets is wonderfully close. Steuern. takes Deuteronomy 18:10-12 a as an independent law to which an editor has added Deuteronomy 18:9; Deuteronomy 18:12 b – Deuteronomy 18:22 a, composed by himself with the use of a Pl. narrative (ch. 5) and perhaps an originally separate law on the Prophets. His analysis has more to say for itself than the other but is not convincing. I agree with Berth. that Deuteronomy 18:20 ff. may as well be dependent on Deuteronomy 18:16 ff. as the converse.

It is significant but not surprising that the Law of the Prophet is peculiar to D and not found in other Codes, which contain, however, prohibitions of the foreign practices here forbidden to Israel, E, Exodus 22:18 (17), H, Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 19:26; Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:2 ff., Leviticus 20:27. It is more important to notice Saul’s suppression of those who dealt with ghosts (1 Samuel 28:3), and the frequent protests of the prophets, and their appeals to the word of the living God (Isaiah 2:6; Isaiah 8:19, Micah 3:6 f., Micah 5:12 (11), Jeremiah 27:9; Jeremiah 29:8), for in these we find the real basis of this law of D, as well as the example of its form.

In the Code of Ḫammurabi there are no laws against divination, sorcery or magic. False accusations of laying spells on men are punished, but the ordeal by water is enjoined in one of the two cases mentioned—§§ 1 f.

10. There shall not be found with thee] Deuteronomy 17:2.

that maketh his son … to pass through the fire] See on Deuteronomy 12:31 : the want of a conjunction following this clause (so also Sam. and LXX except in some codd.) is remarkable, and raises a doubt as to the originality of the clause.

On the following terms see W. R. Smith, Journal of Philology, xiii. 273 ff., xiv. 113 ff.: ‘The Forms of Divination and Magic in Dt. xviii. 10, 11’; Wellhausen, Reste des arab. Heidentums2, 135–153; Driver, Deut. 223–226; T. W. Davies ‘Divination’ and ‘Magic,’ in E.B.; F. B. Jevons ‘Divination,’ Hastings’ D.B., to all of which the references below are directed.

one that useth divination] Heb. kôsem kesamîm. From its root and certain Ar. forms which = ‘to divide’ or ‘allot,’ the vb appears to have meant originally to divine by the lot (disputed by Davies, E.B. 2900), e.g. by arrows as described in Ezekiel 21:21 ff. (Ezekiel 21:26 ff.); practised by the Babylonians (Lenormant, Chald. Magic, 238 n. 2), and Arabs (Korân, Deuteronomy 5:4, where it is forbidden; Sale, Prelimin. Discourse, Sec. v.). Elsewhere in O.T. it has a wider sense, e.g. 1 Samuel 28:8. LXX here μαντευόμενος μαντείαν.

one that practiseth augury] Better, soothsayer. LXX κληδονιζόμενος. Heb. me‘ônen, which used to be derived from ‘anan, ‘cloud,’ as if cloud-gazer, and is by Wellh. supposed to spring from the root-meaning of ‘anan, ‘to appear’ or ‘intervene’ (cp. Ar. ‘ann), as if dealing in phenomena. But the word is probably onomatopoetic, humming or crooning (W. R. Smith); cp. Ar. ghanna, and Jdg 9:37, the oak of the me‘ônenîm, a whispering, oracular tree. Condemned also in Isaiah 2:6, as Philistine, Micah 5:12, Jeremiah 27:9.

or an enchanter] Better, augur or observer of omens. LXX οἰωνιζόμενος. That this is the meaning of the Heb. menaḥesh appears from the story of Balaam, Numbers 24:1 (where for enchantments read omens), from Genesis 44:15, of Joseph’s divination With his cup (hydromancy; cp. for Babylonia Zimmern in KAT3[141], 533 f., and for the Arabs, Doughty ii. 188), the use of the vb in Genesis 30:27, 1 Kings 20:33, to observe, and its meaning in Syriac, ‘divination from natural signs.’ Others take it as onomatopoetic, ‘to hiss,’ or connect it with naḥash, serpent. On divination on the sand, see Doughty i. 162.

[141] Die Keilinschriften und das AIte Testament, 3rd edition (1903), by H. Zimmern and H. Winckler.

or a sorcerer] Heb. mekashsheph. For this and keshaphîm, see Exodus 7:11; Exodus 22:18 (17) (E’s law against the sorceress, see Dri.’s note), Micah 5:11, Nahum 3:4, Jeremiah 27:9, Malachi 3:5, 2 Chronicles 33:6 (of Manasseh) and Isaiah 47:9; Isaiah 47:12, Daniel 2:2 (both of Babylon). W. R. Smith, comparing the Ar. form, suggests that keshaphîm were ‘herbs or other drugs shredded into a magic brew’ (in Micah 5:12, they are held in the hand); cp. the LXX φάρμακα, ‘magical potions.’ But the original meaning of the Ar. kispu is (Zimmern, Schrader’s KAT3[142], 605) spittle or foam from the mouth by which a man might be bewitched; cp. Ḫammurabi, § 2.

[142] Die Keilinschriften und das AIte Testament, 3rd edition (1903), by H. Zimmern and H. Winckler.

11. a charmer] With Sam. LXX omit or: the name is in apposition to the preceding. Heb. ḥober heber, weaving spells, spell-binder; either of the tying of knots as malignant charms, common among Semites and other races (Campbell Thompson, Sem. Magic 162–173, Frazer, Golden Bough i. 394 ff.; mentioned in the Korân, Sur. cxiii, ‘the mischief of women blowing on knots’; also practised in Europe, cp. the French ‘nouer l’éguillette’), or of the weaving of incantations and spells (W. R. Smith), so LXX ἐπαείδων ἐπαοιδήν. In Psalm 58:5 (6) of charming serpents. For spell-makers in Arabia, see Doughty i. 258, 333, 464 f.

a consulter with a ghost or familiar spirit] Heb. sho’el’ôb weyiddeonî; ’ôb was the spirit of a dead person, also applied to the medium, whose body it inhabited, speaking out from this in a chirping, twittering voice (probably imitated from the sound of bats haunting sepulchres), LXX ἐνγαστρίμυθος; see Leviticus 20:27, 1 Samuel 28:3; 1 Samuel 28:7; 1 Samuel 28:9, Isaiah 8:19; Isaiah 29:4, 2 Kings 22:6; 2 Kings 23:24. Yiddeonî means either instructor (the form may be causative) or knower (cp. Scot. wise = with powers of magic, wise-wife = witch, wise-folk = fairies) or acquaintance, familiar (W. R. Smith). LXX, τερατοσκόπος.

a necromancer] Heb. enquirer of, or resorter to (doresh, see on seek, Deuteronomy 12:5), the dead: a general description of the consulter of ghosts and familiar spirits. With Sam. LXX omit or.

12. abomination] See Deuteronomy 18:9.

unto the Lord] Sam. LXX add thy God, and LXX B omits this in next clause.

doth drive them out] Heb. is to dispossess them, see on Deuteronomy 9:5; cp. Deuteronomy 4:38.

13. perfect] blameless; not elsewhere in D, but twice in P in this moral sense (Genesis 6:9 of Noah, Deuteronomy 17:1 required of Abraham as the condition of God granting him His covenant) and frequent in a physical sense, Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:10; Leviticus 3:1, etc. The sense of the incompatibility of magic and necromancy with loyalty to the God of Israel is traceable from at least Saul’s time onward, and is very articulate in the great prophets. The instinct was sound. That such practices divert men from the rational and ethical elements of religion and weaken both the judgement and will of those who resort to them is notorious in the history of modern spiritualism. Cp. Luke 16:31 : if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead. Let other nations hearken to soothsayers and diviners, God does not grant such to His people (Deuteronomy 18:14). For them the living word of the living God is the thing! (Isaiah 8:19), to which this law now therefore naturally turns.

15. A prophet from the midst [of thee] of thy brethren like unto me shall the LORD thy God raise up to thee] Such is the emphatic order of the original, missed by EVV. A prophet—not individual but collective1[143], i.e. a succession of prophets, for the whole spirit of the passage is that God shall never fail to speak directly to His people—is placed at the head of the sentence in forcible contrast to the diviners and necromancers just described, a speaker for God as Aaron was spokesman for Moses (J, Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1). Like the king (Deuteronomy 17:15) he must be an Israelite (Sam., from the midst of thy brethren); (LXX B etc. from thy, Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37, from your, brethren); diviners and necromancers were foreign (Isaiah 2:6, Nahum 3:4, Isaiah 47:9; Isaiah 47:12). Like unto me, i.e. (as the next v. shows) in being the mediator of God; the phrase does not imply equality in rank with Moses; according to Deuteronomy 34:10, there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, cp. Numbers 12:6-8.

[143] Cp. the use of the sing, king in Deuteronomy 17:14 ff., and judge in Jdg 2:18. ‘A Prophet is used by enallage for a number of prophets. Moses is here treating of the continual manner of the Church’s government. Not at all more correct is their opinion who apply it strictly to Christ alone, for it is well to bear in mind what I have said respecting God’s intention, viz. that no excuse should be left for the Jews, if they turned aside to familiar spirits or magicians, since God would never leave them without prophets and teachers. But if He had referred them to Christ alone, the objection would naturally arise that it was hard for them to have neither prophets nor revelations for two thousand years.’ (Calvin.)

16, 17. See on Deuteronomy 5:22 (assembly), 25, 27 f. Cullen (pp. 143 ff.) denies the dependence of Deuteronomy 18:15-16 on Deuteronomy 5:19-28.

18. I will raise … like unto thee] These words are not in Deuteronomy 5:25 ff.

put my words in his mouth] Cp. Deuteronomy 5:31, Jeremiah 1:9; Jeremiah 5:14.

19. whosoever will not hearken … I will require it of him] Cp. the confidence of Jeremiah 26:12-15; Jeremiah 29:8 f., Jeremiah 29:18 ff. (the punishment exacted for not hearkening to God’s word), Jeremiah 35:13 ff. LXX B omits my words; Sam. LXX most codd. his words. Require, darash, Jeremiah 23:21 (22).

20. the prophet, etc.] These special cases prove that throughout this passage no single prophet but a succession of prophets is meant.

which shall speak presumptuously, etc.] Heb. who shall be presumptuous (Deuteronomy 17:12, see on Deuteronomy 1:43) to speak a word, etc. It is notorious how many such ‘prophets’ appeared in Israel both before and during the seventh century (see Jeremiah passim). On the rest of the v. see on Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

21. if thou say in thine heart] Deuteronomy 8:17.

22. The falseness of such a prophet is exposed by the non-fulfilment of his predictions. Jeremiah states the converse: if any prophet prophesy peace (which in the seventh century the false prophets usually did) and his word come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him (Jeremiah 28:9).

It is true that ‘this test is explicitly rejected for the prophets of other gods (Deuteronomy 13:1-5); nor is the higher Hebrew prophecy nearly so much predictive as interpretative’ (Wheeler Robinson in loco). Yet we must remember that though the main burden of the prophets consisted of truths of morality and religion (the unity and righteousness of God and the ethical character of His demands) they were also concerned with the vindication of these in the actual experience of the people. To them truth was never merely abstract, they looked for its fulfilment by God in history. Prof. A. B. Davidson once said to the present writer: ‘The prophets were terribly one-idea’d men. Yet their one idea was the greatest of all, that God was going to do something.’ So Amos 3:4-8. The two most spiritual of the prophets staked their credit as the bearers of God’s word on certain historical issues. Isaiah was sure of the inviolableness of Jerusalem and the survival of a remnant of the people (on this see Rev. of Theol. & Phil. iii. 7 by the present writer in answer to Guthe’s Jesaia in Religionsgeschichtlicke Volksbücher); and Jeremiah was content to wait on events for the decision whether he or Hananiah had the word of the LORD (Jeremiah 28 esp. 11b, see Duhm’s fine remarks on this chapter in the Kurzer Hand-Commentar). Again after reporting the word of the LORD, that his uncle should come to him asking him to buy his field, he adds when the uncle came and did so, then knew I that this was the word of the LORD (Deuteronomy 32:6 ff.). Of course, behind all this was the faith that God had a future for Israel in the land, though the Babylonians had overrun it and Jerusalem must fall to them. If then Jeremiah himself so much depended for the proof of his message upon the issue of events, we cannot be surprised that D proposes to the popular mind the same test of a prophet’s word.—Though beyond our immediate subject we may note that the word of the Lord by the true prophet was not always fulfilled. This is explained in Jeremiah 18 and Jonah 4 as due to a change in the moral situation. Such, however, is not a full explanation. Sometimes, as in the case of the non-fulfilment of Jeremiah’s own early predictions about the Scythians, and his slow arrival (only after the battle of Carchemish) at the conviction that Babylon was to be the executioner of God’s judgements on Israel, the change in the prophet’s word was due to altered political circumstances.